A GB for John Baker

John--- Here's a link that Vinny sent me for a very interesting GB42 Europa.

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatFullDetails.jsp?boat_id=1703941&checked_boats=1703941&ybw=&units=Feet&access=Public&listing_id=76144&url=

Notice that it has a small transverse stateroom in the lazarette accessed via a ladder trhough a hatch in the aft deck.* I had never seen an arrangement like this before so posted the link on the GB owners forum with a question about the configuration.* Got a reply from the son of the first marine engineer American Marine hired when*they started to build GBs in Kowloon in the 1960, the "Kong" of Kong and Halverson.* He attached a plan for the orignal GB42 Europa which was introduced in wood in the early 1970s.* He said the lazarette*crew cabin--- which was intended for a hired hand--- was a standard feature in all the wood GB42 Europas, and you can see it in the bottom drawing of the plan.* It was apparently dropped when the GB42 Europa*was switched to fiberglass but American Marine obviously retained the ability to install one if a buyer wished.

It's kind of a neat idea, actually. The one in the woody GB42EU even had it's own toilet as does the one in the fiberglass boat in the link.* The crew cabin in the fiberglass boat has a full berth and a 3/4 berth and theoretically can sleep two adults.* The one in the woody, which was a*smaller hull, appears to have just the one berth.*

If a boating couple had a kid, this would be a great place to keep it.* You wouldn't want to be claustrophobic, however, although it appears there was a small portlight in the side of the wood boat for light and, if it opened, fresh air.* Doesn't look like there is one on the port side and the fiberglass GB in the link doesn't have one at all.

I have no idea what the crew cabin did to access to things like the steering gear, exhaust hoses, etc.

Based on the description of the boat, the asking price of $195,000*is amazingly low.* You'd have to learn to love taking care of exterior wood, however.



-- Edited by Marin on Wednesday 20th of January 2010 02:01:30 AM

pretty boat, 195k is alot of money tho for a 42.. i could never see myself spending that even if i had it

Hahaha!

Yea,
I was thinking the same thing......

Yep, that is a fine boat and not a bad price for it. Pretty interesting how they did that aft berth. It would be cool to see how it is laid out in person.

Still outta my price range. EVERYTHING is outta my range until I sell this boat!!

sloboat wrote:

Unfortunately, it has those problem prone Lehman 135s ...

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the major drawback of this boat to me.* But if one had the money this boat could easily be re-powered with Luggers or Cats



*

I will just quantify these statements to any newbies that may be looking or lurking....Ford Lehmans are some of the best engines out there!!!!

Sloby, I know it was just sarcasm. Just didn't want anyone to get the wrong idea...

There are Lehmans and there are Lehmans. They were not all created equal.

Another potential repower for this boat so you could get rid of the 135s is the 150 hp*drop-in replacement made by American Diesel.* It, too, is based on a Ford of England six-cylinder engine, but a currently manufactured model.* There are a few people on the Grand Banks forums who have had a 135 fail catastrophically on their twin-engine*boat and rather than replace both engines have replaced only the failed engine using the new AD engine, which drops right into place with no significant*modifications to the boat needed.* I have asked if there are any problems with sync or differential power with one engine being a 135 and the other a 150 based on a totally different engine*and the owners have said no.

The American Diesel engine is less expensive than the NA Lugger 6 cyl*engine of the same horsepower.* Last I heard I believe the AD engine is about $12,000 or $14,000.* Plus whatever the installation costs are.* I have no idea how the AD engine stacks up in terms of reliability or longevity.

If I was in a re-power position I would be inclined*go with the Lugger because I'm familiar with the engine and the company.* But I would first try to find out as much as I could about the AD engine because, on paper anyway, it represents a more cost-effective solution.


-- Edited by Marin on Wednesday 20th of January 2010 06:47:46 PM

OK Marin,
You asked for it. I don't know why you would say a 120 is superior to a 135. My best guess is that to date- from what I have read- anything You own is superior to anything We own. I take a lot of pride in my ability to make informed purchase decisions. I study online, in magazines, talk with people and apply the life lessons I have learned myself. Best I can tell, if we discuss anchors, your is the best. Teak? Same answer. Who makes the best (i love this one because you always are able to mention your friend at Northern Lights during your answer) generator? BTW, I happen to own a fresh 8Kw NL. Glad I got that right.
Lehman engines are about long life. It has always been. You wanna guess how much YOUR 120 weighs? 1254 pounds. Wanna guess how much my 135 weighs? You got it l. 1254 pounds. Now granted, I have to deal with a shiny valve cover, radiator cap and air box- but I will just have to live with that. Did I mention I'm not changing injector pump oil every 50 hours? Now that's a feature worth having. You are having to do that on YOUR pair of 120's. But you don't see ME suggesting you rip them out to repower. I can't wait to read your response

I'm simply going on the experiences I read about on GB forums, from the repair stats I've been quoted by our local diesel shop which, with a 3,000 boat marina as customers, works on tons of just about every kind of engine out there. And most telling to me, discussions I had two years ago with a retired fellow from England who now lives in Victoria, BC who made a fortune in the UK with a company that serviced, repaired, overhauled, and remanufactured Ford of England diesels of all kinds through the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Including the base engines that were marinized by Lehman Bros. into the FL120 (Dorset engine) and the FL135 (Dover engine). I got more valuable information about our own engines and how to run them in our boat from him than from any other source I've come across, including Bob Smith at American Diesel.

So based on all this, all I can say is I would not want a boat with FL135s in it. The FL 120 is a crap engine, too, by today's standards, but from everything I've either read or been told, it is less prone to some of the cylinder wall and piston skirt problems that can occur--- I did not say will occur--- in the FL135. And if either engine is turbocharged, I'm told the failure risk goes up a lot.

It's not a question of what I have is better--- if we had the budget for it right now the FL120s would be out of our boat and into the dumpster this weekend. But they came with the boat, they had low time on them, so we'll run them until they fail, which I expect to be sooner rather than later, at which point we'll get rid of them and put something better in.

So don't hold your breath waiting for me to extol the virtues of the FL120 over the FL135. Were we buying a boat today, having lived with FL120s for almost twelve years, there's no way in hell we'd buy a boat with either engine in it.

Marin,You can trash your 120's this weekend if you want. Thats OK with me. For me, I 'm not buying your cylinder wall dance. I have never heard of this complaint except from you. If you have numerous, heck, even 3 examples of this type of failure then I suggest you show your hand to regain my respect. Out of the 3000 marina boats your mechanic oversees and the two years of talks with the Dorset tech who worked on these boat anchors from the 50's through the 80's (BTW, the 120 and 135 began production in June '82) surely SOMEONE has documentation. All I'm saying is that if the best you can come up with is one guy in your marina who overheated his 135 and gaulded a piston for proof of your point- then that ain't enough to trash MY engine. I gotta have more.

Forkliftt wrote:

*
(BTW, the 120 and 135 began production in June '82)

Click to expand...

Really?* 1982.** June, no less.**Perhaps American Marine was using Stewie's time machine to transport FL120s back so they could put them*in all those 1960's*GB woodies they were building with this engine?* Our*1973 boat has FL120s in it, too.** This must have been much easier since AM*only had to transport our engines back nine years in time.

For someone who takes a lot of pride in making informed purchase decisions, you*might want to do a tad more research.* The base engine of the FL120*was designed in the late 1950s as a truck engine for which purpose it proved to be a miserable failure.* I don't know the development history of the FL135.

This discussion is leading me to believe everyone on this forum is 85 years old and yearning for the past.* Steam engines were really cool in the 40s and 50s but you wouldn't want to pull a train with one today.* That, in a nutshell, is how I view Lehman engines.* Great at the time, hopelessly outdated today.* Just because we have them in many of our boats doesn't make them good engines, it just means they're better than nothing and*they're very expensive to replace.* So we put up with them.* I have yet to meet a Lehman owner--- and I've met a lot of them--- who say they think their engines are the greatest things on the planet.* Virtually all of them say, almost apologetically, when asked,*"Yes, our boat has Ford Lehmans," and then they quickly add, *"but what we'd really like are (insert modern engine here)."

They're old, theyr'e outdated, they're*pathetically underpowered for their size and weight,*and they're inefficient.* Not what I consider the definition of a great engine.**If these old Fords are such wonderous engines, you'd think they'd still be making them.* They aren't.

*


-- Edited by Marin on Wednesday 20th of January 2010 11:02:34 PM

Dude,
You got me on the manufacturing date. But you gotta be kidding about APOLOGETIC Lehman owners. I have not seen a Lehman owner yet that put his hat in his hand and shuffled his feet in hopes that I would not think less of him as a Lehman owner. Maybe you can produce 3 of those for me?

Well, let me say this about that - as a totally inexperienced newbie.* I find the utter simplicity of the FL120 to be highly appealing.* As a matter 'o fact, having a FL120 in the boat was high on the requirements list during the search.* After years of lurking and research it just seemed the logical choice.

When I had the boat surveyed, the diesel mechanic told me that the engine had more than enough life left in it to outlast me.* I told him that I had never touched a diesel before, but that over the years I had kept numerous POS gasoline powered cars running. He laughed and said that if I could do that I would have no problem at all with the FL120.* So far, he's been right about that.*

If the engine died, and if I thought the boat was worth a repower, I would have little hesitation going with the AD replacement.

Just my $0.02 worth.

-- Edited by BaltimoreLurker on Thursday 21st of January 2010 07:32:39 AM

Forkliftt wrote:Maybe you can produce 3 of those for me?

Click to expand...

Well, come on out here.* You can talk to a whole region full of them.* I know three of them on our dock alone.

I'm not saying the FL120, or even the FL135, is a troublesome engine.* In theory the FL120 can go some 12,000 to 14,000 hours between overhauls-- by which I mean bearings, pistons, etc., not ancillary components like injection pumps, water pumps, etc ---* although I'm told they rarely do because of the life most engines in recreational boats lead.* Bob Smith at American Diesel has told me about the FL120s that were in some Washington State Ferries decades ago that went some 25,000 hours before needing an overhaul.* This is a bit apples and oranges since those engines ran continuously powering generators or hydraulic pumps or something and had a very rigorous, consistent, and professional maintenance schedule.

My only two points have been* a) according to people who work on them, the FL135 can develop problems that don't occur as often on FL120s and b) as engines, Lehmans are old-technology, inefficient, overly heavy, underpowered, and require more routine servicing and maintenance than a modern engine.* The fact that they can be fairly long-lived does not change any of that.* The Simms/CAV jerk-injection, in-line IP on the FL120 is one of the stupidest things ever put on an engine.* And unfortunately, it's also the single most expensive thing on the engine, something that's Not Good with a component that is self-destructing the moment you turn on the engine. Rebuilding the damn thing--- which is something that will need to be done several times over the service life of the engine--- is amazingly expensive and getting more so by the year as parts become harder to get and fewer and fewer people are around who know how to work on them.* Our diesel shop has told me that the demise of a Simms pump was the excuse some of their customers have used to justify re-engining their boat altogether.* The elimination of the Simms pump is, as Steve pointed out, one of the advantages of the FL135 over the FL120 although I do not know how the average service life of the pump on the FL135 compares with the average service life of the IP on the FL120.* If they're about the same then I guess the only advantage is the elimination of the need to service the pump every 50 hours.

Like Bob Smith's raw water pump coupler he designed for Lehman, the Simms IP may have been a good idea at the time but (as Bob Smith has told me with regards to the pump drive coupler) time has proven both designs to be seriously flawed.* There's nothing you can do about the Simms pump since it's what Ford used in the manufacturer of the engine.* (Some FL120s have a rotary IP but I don't know how the service life of that pump stacks up against the inline pump.) * Fortunately there is something you can do about the failure-prone raw water pump drive.

The two Lehman models were used in a zillion boats which makes it very likely that someone shopping for an old boat is going to end up with one or the other of these engines.* Given the expense of a diesel engine, changing them out just because of* their drawbacks compared to a modern engine rarely makes sense unless one has and wants to spend the money to do it.* The diesel shop we use in Bellingham has been hired to do this on occasion, replacing fairly low-time FL120s or FL135s with brand new engines, but for most of us this is not practical or economically feasible.

Does having these ancient powerplants in your boat detract from the boating experience. Of course not.* Does it mean you have a bad boat?* Of course not--- at the time it was built the Lehmans they put in were brand new and were considered the best engine to use.* But that time was long ago.* Engine technology, engine systems, metallurgy, etc. has long since advanced beyond what Ford of England was doing back then.

Hence my statement that, in objective comparison with the kinds of engines available today, the old Ford Lehmans are crummy engines.* Were we in the market for an old boat today, based on everything I've since learned about Lehmans and our own experience with them since 1998, we would make every effort to find a boat with more modern engines.* Or else have the funds to replace a Lehman, but if one has that much money it makes more sense to simply buy a much newer boat and avoid the whole Lehman issue altogether.* The people I have heard of who have re-powered old boats to get rid of the Lehmans did so because they were so in love with their boat they did not want to get anything different.

By their very nature, most of today's diesel engines avoid the potential problems and high service and maintenance requirements of the Lehmans.* Will they last longer?* Depends on how they're used and maintained, but probably not, at least not in recreational use.* I've mentioned my friend in Hawaii who gets at least 30,000 hours between any sort of overhaul work on the Volvo engines he has in his longline tunaboat fleet but that's a whole different deal than the typical recreational boater who might put 100 or so hours on his engines a year.

But assuming the same service life between a Lehman and a modern engine, the new engine will be far more efficient and far less labor-intensive with regards to servicing and maintenance, which over time translates into far less expense to operate.* Of course this is something you can say about anything newer--- cars, planes, railroad locomotives, or lawnmowers.

*


-- Edited by Marin on Thursday 21st of January 2010 01:35:47 PM

Marin, all I will contribute to this discussion - fascinating tho it has been - is not to hold your breath waiting for your FL 120s to die so you can re-power. My boat is 35 yrs old, the FL 120 engine time is 'off the clock', as it were, and the engine still runs as sweetly as the day she was put in - couldn't run any sweeter, or more reliably, and she still only uses a smidgeon of oil, and literally runs on the smell of an oily rag. Unless you deliberately killed them, and I know you're not that kinda guy, you could be in for a loooong wait, friend.

Peter B

Peter B wrote:

Unless you deliberately killed them, and I know you're not that kinda guy, you could be in for a loooong wait, friend.

Click to expand...

I know.* Our engines use no more oil in 100 hours today than they did when we acquired the boat twelve years ago, which is none on the port side and half a quart on the starboard side.* So we have decided the only way we're going to get rid of the damn things is to get a new boat that has real diesels in it instead of these two Smithsonian exhibits.

*

OK,
This is my last try on this subject. Unfortunatley I am typing one letter at a time on my iPhone so will never win this debate based solely on a lengthy answer.
Marin,
Unfortunatley I don't see myself coming up to the Pacific North West anytime soon so your offer to meet with 3 unhappy Lehman owners on your pier alone will have to remain an offer. It must be a very long pier. You could come down here and try to locate some unhappy Lehman owners but I am pretty sure you would not have much luck.
As my wife was once again pulling Christmas decorations out of the attic just before Thanksgiving (A similar task led to the demise of our beloved Skipper Bob only recently) she exclaimed "Honey! We have MICE in the attic! (true story) She saw droppings which told her this was the case. "Well pick up some mouse traps and I will put a few in the attic for you" I responded. The next day she returned home from Wal Mart with a 4 pack of small mouse traps and 2 triangle tube shaped "mouse traps". The triangle shaped was the new improved version it turn out. No bait needed, and after trapping the mouse you don't even see the poor dead creature. You just throw the whole trap away. She really liked that feature- as she possibly would be the one to dispose of said mouse.
I couldn't get two of the conventional traps to set and threw them away. I set the remaining traps out and the next evening I checked and found I had trapped one mouse. Old style. The following evening my oldest son checked on the attic and we had caught a second one. Old style trap again. No more were caught and everthing was ship shape as Christmas decorations were returned after New Year.
Marin,
If something works, and it works well, why change it?

Forkliftt wrote:

Marin,
If something works, and it works well, why change it?

Click to expand...

But it doesn't work well. It's inefficient, too heavy, barely generates enough power to get out of its own way, and is way*too maintenance-intense by my standards.

I don't mind old stuff if the objective is to restore a steam engine or an Austin Healey 3000 or keep an old Land*Rover running*or whatever.* They're just hobbies and aren't expected to be reliable or have good performance or be efficient.* They're fun to screw around with and if they run good every now and then, hey, that's a nice bonus.* Working on these things is at least half the fun of having them.

I do not have the same tolerance for an inefficient, outdated design when it comes to the engines in our boat.

One of Boeing's most famous engineers, Ed Wells, the "father of the B-17" once told me in explaining why he urged Boeing to get into jets that "Life's too short to be spent working on propellers."* He didn't say propellers didn't work, he said they were no longer worth messing with.* That pretty much sums up my attitude toward Lehmans and other old marine engines of the same era.

I don't think there's much point in continuing this debate because I'm never going to consider the FL120 or FL135 as anything but ancient, inefficient engines with little more than historical value.

-- Edited by Marin on Saturday 23rd of January 2010 01:48:12 AM